Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/07/2004 - ITEMS RELATING TO FEATHER RIDGE ANNEXATION AND ZON ITEM NUMBER : 27 A=C AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE : September 7 , 2004 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF : Ted Shepard SUBJECT Items Relating to the Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinances on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A . Resolution 2004- 108 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Feather Ridge Annexation. B . First Reading of Ordinance No . 141 , 2004, Annexing Property Known as the Feather Ridge Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado . C . First Reading of Ordinance No . 142 , 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Feather Ridge Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado . This is a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of a property approximately 15 .46 acres in size . The site is located approximately 1 ,200 feet east of Ziegler Road, north of Hewlett-Packard/Agilent Technologies, and approximately 2 , 144 feet north of East Harmony Road. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate . This zoning complies with the recently amended Structure Plan Map . BACKGROUND The property is located within the Growth Management Area. According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area (IGA), the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The property gains contiguity by the following parcels : Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the Preston Kelley Second Subdivision (Hewlett-Packard and Agilent Technologies). Contiguity is also gained along the western boundary which is shared with the east property line of Woodland Park Estates P. U.D. , and along a portion of the north boundary which is shared with the Robert Shields Subdivision. September 7 , 2004 -2 - Item No . 27 A-C This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. The property satisfies the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The recommended zoning of U-E, Urban Estate, is in compliance with the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and Structure Plan Map. Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Initiating Resolution was considered by City Council on July 20, 2004 and approved. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5 -0 to recommend approval/denial to the City Council. According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, contained in the amended (November 21 , 2000) IGA, the City will agree to consider for annexation property in the GMA when such property is eligible for annexation according to State law. According to Section 8A of the IGA, as amended: "It is the City' s intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as possible consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section 8(B), the City agrees to consider the annexation of any parcel or parcels of land located within the GMA which are eligible for voluntary annexation pursuant to the provisions of Title 31 , Article 12 Colorado Revised Statutes . " The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows : N: U-E ; Existing Residential (Robert Shields Subdivision) S : H-C ; Existing Light Industrial and Office (Agilent Technologies & Hewlett-Packard) E : FA- I (County), Existing Rural Residential W: R-L; Existing Single Family (Woodland Park Estates) The parcel gains the necessary one-sixth contiguity along the entire south and west property lines . In addition, contiguity is gained along a portion of the north property line . Of the total perimeter boundary, the parcel has 61 % contiguity with the City limits . This substantially exceeds the required minimum of 16 . 66% (one-sixth) . The parcel, therefore, complies with the requirements of the IGA and is eligible for annexation. One of the stated intents of the IGA is to have urban development occur within the City in order that the provision of urban level services by the County would be minimized. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The parcel is not an enclave. On July 20, 2004, City Council approved a Resolution which accepted the annexation petition and established that the petition is in compliance with State statutes . September 7 , 2004 -3 - Item No . 27 A-C Zoning: The proposed zoning for the Feather Ridge Annexation is U-E, Urban Estate . The U-E district is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low-density and large-lot housing. The main purposes of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural or open lands . The requested zoning of U-E complies with the City ' s Structure Plan Map. In addition, staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District which was created for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in certain geographic locations of the City. Compliance with State Law: As mentioned, the annexation has 61 % of its perimeter boundary contiguous with existing City limits which exceeds the required one-sixth as mandated by State law. Further, the parcel is found to have a community of interest with the City and the parcel is expected to urbanize shortly. Findings of Fact/Conclusion : In evaluating the request for the Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, as contained in the amended IGA. 2 . The parcel meets all criteria included in State law to qualify for annexation by the City of Fort Collins . 3 . The requested zone district, U-E, Urban Estate, is in conformance with the City' s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and the recently amended City Structure Plan Map . 4. Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. 5 . On July 20, 2004, City Council approved the Resolution which accepted the annexation petition and determines that the petition is in compliance with State law. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation : On August 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Board took the following action: • Voted 5 -0 to recommend annexation into the municipal boundary and inclusion into the Residential Sign District. • Voted 5 -0 to recommend placement into the U-E, Urban Estate zone district. RESOLUTION 2004- 108 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE FEATHER RIDGE ANNEXATION WHEREAS , annexation proceedings were heretofore initiated by the Council of the City of Fort Collins for property to be known as the Feather Ridge Annexation; and WHEREAS , following notice given as required by law, the Council has held a hearing on said annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows : Section 1 . That the Council hereby finds that the petition for annexation complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 2 . That the Council hereby finds that there is at least one-sixth ( 1 /6) contiguity between the City and the property proposed to be annexed; that a community of interest exists between the property proposed to be annexed and the City; that said property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future ; and that said property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City. Section 3 . That the Council further determines that the applicable parts of said Act have been met, that an election is not required under said Act and that there are no other terms and conditions to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 4 . That the Council further finds that notice was duly given and a hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with said Act. Section 5 . That the Council concludes that the area proposed to be annexed in the Feather Ridge Annexation is eligible for annexation to the City and should be so annexed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 7th day of September, A.D . 2004 . Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk ORDINANCE NO . 141 , 2004 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE FEATHER RIDGE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2004-080, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the Council of the City of Fort Collins ; and WHEREAS , the Council does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows : Section 1 . That the following described property, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 33 , TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE WEST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 33 , TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P .M. , THENCE N00007' 10 "W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33 , 300 . 80 FEET; THENCE S89 ° 43 '50 "E 1215 . 00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING S89 ° 43 '50 "E, 760 . 08 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR INLET; THENCE S29 °44'50"E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY, 446 . 71 FEET; THENCE S46 ° 05 '36"E CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, 422 .20 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PRESTON-KELLEY SECOND SUBDIVISION; THENCE S89 ° 42'50 "W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PRESTON-KELLEY SECOND SUBDIVISION, 1234 ,45 FEET ; THENCE N45 ° 13 '03 "W 70 . 63 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WOODLAND PARK ESTATES P .U.D . ; THENCE N00 ° 07' 10"W ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID WOODLAND PARK ESTATES P .U.D . , 640 . 62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 15 . 461 ACRES , MORE OR LESS , is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Feather Ridge Annexation, which annexation shall become effective in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 - 12- 113 , C .R. S . , including, without limitation, all required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 2 . That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City. Section 3 . That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45 - 136(3 . 6), C.R. S . , to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of September, A.D . 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 21 st day of September, A.D . 2004, Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 21 st day of September, A.D . 2004 . Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO . 142, 2004 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE FEATHER RIDGE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS , COLORADO WHEREAS , Division 1 . 3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2 . 9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS , in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows : Section 1 . That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1 . 3 .2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the property known as the Feather Ridge Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate (UE) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 33 , TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE WEST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 33 , TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P .M. , THENCE N00007' 10 "W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33 , 300 . 80 FEET; THENCE S89 °43 '50 "E 1215 .00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING S89043 '50 "E, 760. 08 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR INLET; THENCE S29 °44'50"E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY, 446 . 71 FEET; THENCE S46 ° 05 '36"E CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, 422 .20 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PRESTON-KELLEY SECOND SUBDIVISION; THENCE S89 ° 42'50 "W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PRESTON-KELLEY SECOND SUBDIVISION, 1234 .45 FEET ; THENCE N45 ° 13 '03 "W 70. 63 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WOODLAND PARK ESTATES P .U.D . ; THENCE N00 ° 07' 10"W ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID WOODLAND PARK ESTATES P .U.D . , 640 . 62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 15 . 461 ACRES , MORE OR LESS . Section 2 . That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3 . 8 . 7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above- described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3 . That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of September, A.D . 2004, and to be presented for final passage on the 21 st day of September, A.D . 2004, Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 21st day of September, A. D . 2004 . Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk . I Him ►al .. yc....: :: man :: ll, � ��Ql•����.1►i1E�E1f 1Ef'1EIon E�I/// 1�n!!in ON �T.i]T731. *11����*. ■ : :r�n���nnmiimunjllP! • �■ ■•u•�►pa� no 0241101151 �► ♦ ��II ♦ ��IAR�wRA�w Iu lllw,wAlh mammonViJ! pplj ♦ ♦ �- u � n■m�vi !!- .!u �O �� ail►.l�!!!��� � IIIII 1 MEMO Agilent .� iF to ■ i �� �1 ; IN .annul: p��.l��111 IN 111 \a � �� • �INI aluuun . ' MAP 1 Q� /i111t. . 0 Illt l /lid� n0 pNlp♦♦�IIIIIUti1" �:/fir\� =�\::lP� 1♦f1♦♦r1 II �,�: , iug5lu�qui�►i��: ■�Oi����I ' <tlpq : :: .1111/� ■n►♦1�1.u��.A11 i/i0/iirr�d/i/ - II /p♦ IIO■ IIItdO /iqr//p/iirrh//rie` �= hi:►♦�•■• r' is it ■1111 OptlttliltlOt IIOIII Lit■♦�♦♦♦\\��I�1♦ �iiOV/� ♦ .. .■■. ■■ ■■♦ A UpUpiitl/�/■ ■■ .. a■■ Ij1 nun♦ �► .nui .ub ►�Ipt■. .■ .�♦1 Iy - rumh�i►�: unnnpQlAl Ititt o .. a�� pli : I\/: ■tOlOt �� OOOt rllldl �i ♦ tOOUt►: tOltii�� � .. ■iiill� �IIIt1111 ttillltltltl Illlltllll■ . I���nu�!lr�� -uun r. V� iO 11110111111111111illlllt • ■ �► �11��"� u■ :�■I�� :yWIutuutnnm►! ♦puuw: :L►„1 pI111tt0.1111III/♦♦, �� In. �O�, 1p�i ...♦\ puuut- uuullpi Inuuw np1!!�♦♦ �IlnuuU'j/� /� i�� ♦♦�: ...■` 1111/ttnv�l�r Lun\ %�uunlll_J��l��l= �(��� 1111/10►` > _ .tttt�� 1 Nlw PRO 11 C� ♦♦ ilii■ f I♦�i V►� �nn��� tuuntn 11��1lttfj� ♦ � '�♦t11fj Off►♦:�I�I/♦� �iI . .unw ��!. ♦♦,�) C . _ u,n nul . 3►_\IIIII/Nlil�l �IuiN. .r_ '��. == - �- I it1.1♦nn■If tilt III 3 Uin niil ... i' 1,••.: Mae;♦♦ ` :ll 1 11 111 111 June 8, 2004 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning Dear Ted, In accordance with Section 2.12 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, this letter is a formal request to annex and zone the property known as the Feather Ridge Annexation. The property consists of 15.461 acres and is located north of Harmony Road off of Ziegler Road. A private drive off of Ziegler Road is the main point of access onto the site. The Woodland Park Estates subdivision borders the site to the west, the Preston- Kelley subdivision and Hewlett-Packard is located to the south, and the Robert Shields subdivision lies to the north. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet ditch borders the site on the east running parallel to the property line. Surrounding zoning is RL (Low Density Residential) to the west, UE (Urban Estate District) to the north, and HC (Harmony Corridor District)to the south. The property was previously owned by the Thomas family and zoned in Latimer County as FAl (Farming District). In accordance with the proposed future use, we are requesting that the zoning be changed to UE (Urban Estate District). The Feather Ridge development will provide a location for small-scale event and reception uses. These types of uses may include weddings, anniversary parties, birthday parties, office seminars, etc. Generous amounts of open space will be maintained on the site with only a limited area being developed. Annexation Incorporating this property into municipal boundaries results in the following benefits to the City: • The City can take advantage of the property taxes generated by the development. • The property will generate development impact fees. Feather Ridge Annexation Page 1 6/8/2004 • The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth management Area (GMA) and is eligible for voluntary annexation according to Colorado Revised Statutes requiring at least 1/6 of the property to be contiguous with existing City limits. Approximately 2195.86 feet of 3574.89 feet of the total property (61%) is contiguous to the existing City limits. This contiguity occurs through common boundaries to the north, south and west of the site. City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed Feather Ridge Annexation include: PRINCIPLE LU-1: Growth within the city will promote a compact development pattern within a well-defined boundary. Policy LU-1.1 Compact Urban Form The project is located in a vicinity of the southeast part of town that has been identified on the City Structure Plan as an area designated for future growth. PRINCIPLE LU-2: The city will maintain and enhance its character and sense of place as defined by its neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. Policy LU-2.1 City-Wide Structure Policy LU-2.2 Urban Design With the southeast part of the City growing in activity, this project will enhance the urban character of this area, adding an urban estate use to the surrounding proposed commercial and residential identities, and therefore fitting into the City Structure Plan. Policy CAD-1.5 Street Lighting Lighting fixture design and illumination will be tailored to match the use of the private drive. Lighting levels will be designed to adequately light the private drive while avoiding spillover glare and preserving "dark sky" views at night. PRINCIPLE CAD-5: The quality of life in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the preservation of historic resources and inclusion of heritage in the daily life and development of the city and community. Feather Ridge Annexation Page 2 6/8/2004 Policy CAD-5.1 Survey, Identification,and Prioritization. The developer is working with the Landmark Preservation Commission to preserve the historic nature of the existing farmhouse and barn on the Feather Ridge site. PRINCIPLE ENV-5: Natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands,and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced within the developed landscape of Fort Collins. Policy ENV-5.1 Protection and Enhancement The site contains a large number of existing trees. The developers intend comply with the buffer standards to preserve these trees and their wildlife habitat as much a possible. PRINCIPLE GM-2: The City will consider the annexation of new territory into the City limits when the annexation of such property conforms to the vision, goals, and policies of City Plan Policy GM-2.1 Annexation Policies The Feather Ridge property is located within the Community Growth Management Area. The required infrastructure standards will be met by improving the private entry drive to the standards required by the City. All utilities and storm drainage systems will be to City or district standards. Feather Ridge Annexation Page 3 6/8/2004 2004Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, :00 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll Call: Gavaldon, Lingle, Carpenter, Schmidt, Craig, and Torgerson. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wamhoff, Virata, Wray, Waido, Williams. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the July 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ04-18, Easement Dedication. 3. Resolution PZ04-19, Easement Dedication. 4. Resolution PZ04-20, Easement Vacation. 5. #6-96N Goodwill Industries at Harmony Centre, Project Development Plan. (CONFLICT — LINGLE) 6. #15-04 833 S. Taft Hill Road, Bethel Baptist Church, Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. (WITHDRAWN) Discussion Agenda: Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to the General Manager of Utility Services on the following item: 7. Spring Green Out-of-City Utility Request. (CONTINUED TO 8/26/04 PER APPLICANT) The Planning and Zoning Board is the final authority on the following item: 8. #13-82CTOakridge Business Park, Continuing Care Senior Campus, Modification of Standard. (CONTINUED TO 8/26/04 PER APPLICANT) Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 9. #19-04 Creation of a new Rural Lands District (RUL) and amending the Land Use Code to allow single-family detached dwellings in the RUL zone to be developed within '/. mile of 1-25. 10.#20-04 Feather Ridge, Annexation and Zoning. (CONFLICT — LINGLE) Director Gloss announced that Member Lingle had declared a conflict on Item #5, Goodwill Industries at Harmony Centre, Project Development Plan. Director Gloss also Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 8 Member Craig thanked staff for the time and effort put into this issue and added that she thinks it will be a good zone for the area. The motion was approved 6-0. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the City Attorney's office was recommending that, if the Board does not recommend approval of the exception, that they recommend a second zone for at least these two parcels. Attorney Eckman replied that we would just want to make sure there is a reasonable list of uses for this parcel, whether it is in this zone or another zone. The more uses, the better it is in terms of takings issues. Planner Waido asked, if the Board does not approve this exception, if the option to seek a modification would still be available. Attorney Eckman replied that it would be. Member Craig moved to recommend denial of the amendment to Section 3.9.2 which would make and exception to allow single-family detached dwellings in the RUL district to be developed within '/. mile of 1-25. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Lingle voting in the negative. Project: Feather Ridge, Annexation and Zoning, File #20-04 Project Description: Request to annex and zone a 15.46 acre parcel located approximately 1,200 feet east of Ziegler Road, north of Hewlett-Packard, and approximately 2,144 feet north of East Harmony Road. The recommended zoning is UE — Urban Estate. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: NOTE: Member Lingle declared a conflict on this item. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 9 Chief Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He gave a brief presentation outlining the annexation request and location of the property. Chairperson Torgerson asked Attorney Eckman to review the statutes by which the Board was to review this request. Attorney Eckman replied that, as far as the annexation is concerned, we are principally governed by the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for the Growth Management Area and whether or not the annexation is compliant with that agreement. He added that Planner Shepard had already covered that point. Attorney Eckman stated that the State Annexation Act to consider in any annexation. First of all, is there a petition for annexation? The answer to that is that we do have a 100% voluntary annexation petition on file. The second issue is whether or not the land is 1/6 contiguous. As Planner Shepard explained, it is. The third issue is, does a community of interest exist between the property and the City? Is the property urban or will it be urbanized in the near future? Is the property capable of being integrated into the City? In connection with the question of community of interest, urbanization, and capability of integration, it is assumed under the annexation act that if you meet the contiguity requirement then you have met those other requirements unless some credible evidence is given to the Board and later to the City Council to the contrary. Attorney Eckman then referred to the Statute itself. He stated that he understood that there were no adult residents living on this property at this time. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Attorney Eckman stated that, if that was correct, we could skip the first of the three part test. That part was whether or not at least half of the adult residents living on the property use the City's recreational, social, religious, and so on, facilities of the City. If there are no residents, we go to the next part. One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed AND the landowners of that agricultural land, under oath, express an intention to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. Chairperson Torgerson asked if that would be a reason for denial. Attorney Eckman replied that it would be a reason to find that there is not a community of interest if the landowners should come, under oath, and state that they plan to farm the land for the next five years or more. The third issue, according to Attorney Eckman per the State Statute: Is it physically not practicable for the City to provide urban services to this area. If the answer to that is "yes, it is not practicable, we can't serve this," then there may not be a community of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 10 interest between the City and this property. Those are the questions to look at in terms of the annexation. If the city can serve the property; if there is no one that testifies to the Board that the City cannot serve the property; and if the landowners do not intend to farm this for over 5 years, then you do have that community of interest. Attorney Eckmen stated, as to the zoning question, as Planner Shepard explained, it needs to be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and more particularly, the City's Structure Plan map. You also have, in the Code, some additional criteria that you can look at. This is phrased in the terminology of rezonings in Division 2.9 but it can also be applied to initial zonings. These additional factors that the Board is authorized to look at in terms of which zone district is appropriate for the property. That is, whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment, or in this case initial zoning, is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate district for the land. Whether and the extend to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and the natural functioning of the environment. Finally, whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Those are the questions that can be looked at by the Board regarding the zoning. Member Gavaldon asked about the presentation and stated that, since Attorney Eckman outlined the zoning, and we are only supposed to focus on the zoning and annexation at this time, we do not need to hear a lot of information about what the development proposal is on the land. Chairperson Torgerson stated that that was why he asked legal staff to layout these criteria by which the Board makes its decision. Chairperson Torgerson added that he wanted to keep both the applicant's presentation and public testimony relevant to these points. These are really the only points we are to consider when making our decision. Member Gavaldon noted that should be the case with public input as well. Chairperson Torgerson noted that and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Jim Martell, representing the applicants, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated, with respect to the annexation, staff has outlined that very well. What is most significant, in terms of the annexation, is the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County which does clearly state that you will consider annexations that are within the Growth Management Area and, in fact, is somewhat stronger in that properties that are within the GMA cannot be developed in the County if they are eligible for annexation. This property is clearly eligible for annexation. The petitioners do own 100% of the property, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 11 there are no residents living on the property, they do not intend to farm the property, and the City services are available. So, it meets all of the criteria for the annexation as outlined by Attorney Eckman. Mr. Martell stated that, with respect to the UE zoning, he agreed with staff in terms of their recommendation. The UE zoning is the most appropriate and does comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It clearly complies with the structural map exactly the rural use of the property. That density is appropriate; it is compatible with the zoning on the Shields property which is adjacent and with the County property. It is obviously much less intense that Hewlett-Packard and Agilent Technologies but the zoning is appropriate for this property since it is set back from the street somewhat. And, it is consistent with the logical and orderly development of the area. Mr. Martell stated that he agrees completely with the staff comments and would urge the Board to recommend to City Council that they annex the property and adopt the UE zoning. Public Input Chairperson Torgerson stated that three minutes would be allowed for any individuals who would like to speak and five minutes for those speaking on behalf of a defined neighborhood group. Jim Herlihy (sp?), 3138 Grand Teton Place in the Woodland Park Estates development, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that part of what he had to say was a question because, not being familiar with the process, it is difficult to understand the establishment of the zoning without thinking about the intended use of the property. Knowing, based on what the developers are talking about, it is hard to keep that separate from the zoning process because when we talk about it, as some of the items that were mentioned up front. Is the zoning compatible with the surrounding zoning? Being a resident of a residential neighborhood, that would really become an isolated area as a result of this. We are inserting a commercial development with late night operations between unincorporated housing areas and a residential neighborhood. This could have a significant, adverse impact on this neighborhood. To the same point that Mr. Martell raised, if this will contribute to the logical and orderly development pattern of this neighborhood. Given the development that is being proposed across Ziegler of the new leisure center, that is going to make that side of the street pretty heavily commercial. Agilent and Hewlett-Packard obviously are established but are a very peaceful neighbor for us. To insert something on one side of this property, there will be a '/< mile, heavily-traveled, high-speed access road along one side that will contribute a lot of issues to the neighborhood. Plus, adding a late night entertainment venue to the back end of this residential development will have a significant effect on the property values and the character of this neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 12 Janet Zunija (sp?), 4026 Mesa Verde, gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that her property abuts the property in question with 240 feet of frontage. She stated that she wanted to appeal to the Board as the people who represent citizens, not the big money people who can wield the power with City planners. She stated that this project would significantly affect the wildlife that is there. Ms. Zunija stated that she can watch foxes, rabbits, blue heron, and other birds from her home. There is family of owls as well and all that will be gone as soon as there are people back there. She stated that the Board members were the only people she could appeal to because they represent the citizens. When this was rezoned, Ms. Zunija felt it was done "under the rug." The zoning that this is attached to is fine for other areas of the City but for this little project in this place, it is not appropriate. Chairperson Torgerson reminded the audience that the Planning and Zoning Board is not the final authority; this will be a recommendation to City Council and they will ultimately make the decision. Thomas Welch, 4033 Mesa Verde Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He wanted to note, for the public record, that it is in the annexation request where the applicants/petitioners state that a "private drive off of Ziegler Road is the main point of access on to the site." Mr. Welch pointed to a location on a map to which this sentence refers and pointed out the dots that illustrate where the homes are in relation to this drive. Mr. Welch illustrated some areas on the map and showed the aforementioned point of access as well as Moriah (sp?) Lane which is a paved County Road that goes all the way up to where the irrigation canal is. He showed a picture taken from the annexation site down the paved road to the east. He proposed this as possibly a secondary or alternate access to the site. Mr. Welch also showed a plot of Meadow Heights subdivision which abuts the annexation site and suggested that alternative access could possibly come across a canal in this area as opposed to the proposed access which is '/. mile long and has been a private drive serving two private residences but which abuts 14 private residences. Mr. Welch stated that on November 20, to the Planning & Zoning Board, Ms. Baker replied that her property is off a major street surrounded by commercial property and that the drive to the property does not pass any homes. Mr. Welch stated that he thought that might mean that the intent was to come in from the east side where you do not pass any homes. Chairperson Torgerson asked Mr. Welch to focus his comments to the annexation and not the PDP project itself. Mr. Welch stated that he wanted to point out the adjacent property densities. Mr. Welch stated that the perimeter of this site is 3,574 feet. The residential area of Woodland Park Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 13 to the west shares a 640 foot, or 18%, boundary with the site. When the '/. mile drive is included, there is really 52% adjacency given the impact of the road. Mr. Welch suggested that it might be more appropriate that this area be zoned residential, as opposed to Urban Estate, which is the same as the majority of the impact that it would have. Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked about Mr. Welch's suggestion that the property be zoned residential as opposed to Urban Estate. Chairperson Torgerson wanted to clarify that Urban Estate is primarily residential zoning. Planner Shepard replied that the issue was discussed in 1996 and 1997 when we adopted City Plan and the Land Use Code and we tried to emphasize to the Board at that time that we were going from a flexible, performance Land Development Guidance System to a prescriptive zoning system; but, to help us with that transition, all the new Land Use Code zones are mixed-use. To say that a zone is residential is difficult under the Land Use Code. Chairperson Torgerson noted that there were some comments about road access but felt that those would be better addressed at the Project Development Plan level. He stated that there were also some comments about views and wildlife which are taken seriously, but asked Planner Shepard if he agreed that those issues would be best dealt with at the Project Development Plan level. Planner Shepard agreed. Member Craig stated that Mr. Welch brought up the fact that the compatibility might be better if this site were zoned as his neighborhood is zoned. In looking at the Structure Plan, even though he is RL, he is to be LMN. Under LMN, Member Craig asked if the small reception center would be allowed. Planner Shepard replied that it would not be allowed under LMN. The small-scale reception center is allowed in several of the commercial zones as well but without the performance standards. Member Schmidt asked what the density would be on the property if it were to be zoned LMN. Planner Shepard replied that the density ranges from 8 dwelling units per gross acre on the high end to 5 dwelling units per net acre on the low end. If the parcel were to be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 14 considered in the infill part of the City, the minimum requirement does not have to be met. Chairperson Torgerson noted that it could also be as high as 12 units per acre if it were an affordable housing project. Member Craig asked what the ballpark number of units would be on this piece of property and what some of the allowed uses, besides residential, would be allowed on this property if it were to be zoned LMN. Planner Shepard replied that the site is 15 and a half gross acres so, hypothetically, 15.46 times 8 would perhaps be the maximum allowable density. Planner Shepard added that he was unsure as to whether or not this was an infill property but guessed it was not. In terms of land uses, they are divided between administrative review and P&Z review. Under the P&Z review, the following uses would be allowed: mobile home parks, group homes, boarding and rooming houses, public and private schools for elementary, intermediate, and high school education and for vocational and technical training, golf courses, long-term care facilities, places of worship or assembly with a building footprint which exceeds a total of 25,000 square feet, neighborhood centers which can contain standard and fast food restaurants but without drive-in or drive-through facilities, artisan and photography studios and galleries, or convenience retail stores with fuel sales but they must be at least % mile from any other such use and from any other gasoline station, offices, financial services (banks), medical clinics, and professional care clinics which are not part of a neighborhood center. Chairperson Torgerson noted that there should be two motions; the first should be on the annexation and the second should be on the zoning. Member Craig noted that the first speaker, Jim, spoke about possible compatibility because of some of the things that are allowed in the UE, which happens to be a small reception center. Member Craig asked if this went before Council as far as rescinding an ordinance and asked if the neighborhood had tried to re-visit the small reception center use in the UE. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Craig asked Planner Shepard to go over how Council responded and what the outcome was. Planner Shepard replied it was a discussion Council had under"other business' at the July 20 Council hearing. One of the Council members made a motion that Ordinance 56-2004, which authorizes small-scale reception centers in the Urban Estate zone with Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 15 performance standards, be re-visited, overturned, or modified somehow. That went to a vote of Council and failed 4-2. Member Craig noted that the neighborhood did get a chance to try to change what is in the Urban Estate and Council did not feel it was necessary at this time to rescind that. Planner Shepard stated that was correct. Member Schmidt asked, regarding the other surrounding land, if it was County land zoned FA-1 and if it was the half-acre piece. She also asked if anything that would develop in that area would need to be annexed before, if it was contiguous. She also asked if the east end of this property was a large irrigation ditch. Planner Shepard replied it is the Fossil Creek Reservoir inlet ditch. Member Schmidt asked if there were any prohibitions to crossing that ditch with bridges. Planner Shepard replied that he was not authorized to answer that and did not know the answer. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to Council annexation of the Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning, File #20-04, based on facts and findings in the Staff Report on page 3, particularly items A and B. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she was going to vote for Urban Estate and was corrected by Chairperson Torgerson that this was the motion for annexation. Member Craig then stated that she would vote in favor of annexation. The motion was approved 5-0. (NOTE: Member Lingle declared a conflict on this item). Chairperson Torgerson noted that the recommendation to Council is to annex the property. Member Gavaldon moved for recommendation to City Council for Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning, File #20-04 to be zoned UE, Urban Estate zoning, and be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, based on the facts and findings of the Staff Report on page 3, particularly items C and D. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 16 Member Gavaldon stated that he was going with the UE for this area because, based on the discussion with staff and looking at what other zonings could be placed in that area, he felt it to be the best and most appropriate zoning. Member Gavaldon encouraged residents to follow the project through on the PDP side of things and work with staff and residents to make this the best possible project. Member Craig stated that "I am also going to vote for zoning it UE. I appreciate your thinking that putting as LMN or residential is a good thing; but, I hope you understood by what was just read to you by Ted that you're opening up a lot more issues than what you're facing right now. I am really sorry that Council wasn't willing to listen to you in regards to your issues putting the small reception center in this area. As I remember, when it came through this Board, I was adamantly opposed of putting this particular use in the Urban Estates and I still am against it. But I think your next battle will be at the PDP stage and that's where you can come in. I think you've done some excellent homework; you've got some great ideas and that's where we can really look at this and help you as much as we possibly can." Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would also support the recommendation to Council for Urban Estate, primarily because it is consistent with the Structure Plan and a lot of thought and planning has gone into the Structure Plan. He added that he thought UE was the most appropriate zoning, especially given the other options available. He also encouraged interested parties to speak to Council, who is the final authority on this item, and encouraged interested parties to remain active in the Project Development Plan phase of whatever might be proposed here. The motion was approved 5-0. (NOTE: Member Lingle declared a conflict on this item). Chairperson Torgerson noted that the recommendation to Council is for Urban Estate zoning for the site. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m.